Our Family's Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Carbon Rebate

On July 1, 2019 Yukon started applying a $20/tonne price on carbon dioxide pollution.  At the same time, the government committed to fully returning the levy to residents.

The rebate is currently $43 / person every six month.  We are a family of 3 and we just got our first 6-month rebate of $129 (it came to us a bit late 'cause I was late filing our 2018 income taxes :-( )

So I was curious - are we going to pay more in our pollution "tipping fee" than we get back from the rebate?  Being someone who believes in "let the data reveal the truth" I've been keeping track of our family's greenhouse gas emissions.  Below are the results for the up till end of February:

Methodology

• Gasoline and propane is simply our emissions by volume of gasoline/propane purchased (simply gas receipts)
• Electricity changes from month-to-month because the carbon intensity of the on-grid electricity varies depending on how much is renewable energy (hydropower) and how much is thermal (diesel and LNG).   I calculate the monthly carbon intensity based on the monthly hydro/thermal generation reported by Yukon Energy.
• For flying, I use the typical emission factor for a 737-400 of 3.9kg/km, then I divide by the number of seats and my visual assessment of "load factor" (how full the plane is).  Then I multiply by 2 to account for the radiant forcing effect of emitting those greenhouse gasses at altitude instead of at ground.
• Average Yukoner emissions (red line at top of chart) is from the most recent reliable GHG emissions estimate for the Yukon, which is from 2015 and presented in the Yukon Energy State of Play (Vector Research, 2018).  In 2015 total Yukon emissions are reported as 572,000 tonnes for a population of 37,745--thus about 15 tonnes CO₂e / person.

Observations

• You can see our gasoline usage is pretty steady year-round about 0.4 tonnes/month.  It was much higher in August because we took a camping road trip through northern BC. 
• The Carbon Levy (pollution price) is only paid on gasoline and propane in Yukon.  Joe has conveniently negotiated an "exception" for aviation so Air North gets to dump their garbage in our air for free (my bias is showing!)  Similarly fossil fuels burned to make electricity has been given an "exception" and no pollution fee is charged for electricity generated with diesel or LNG.  
• Thus we as a family only paid our carbon price on the gasoline and propane we burned and not the aviation or emissions from electricity usage.

Results
Over the six-month period of April through September 2019 (the first rebate was nominally issued in October, so presumably for this period), our family's GHG emissions were:

• 51 tonnes of CO₂e total emitted
• 5.1 tonnes of CO₂e that were subject to the pollution fee
• $102 in carbon pollution fees paid
• $129 in rebate
• + $27 difference

So we are ahead! 

But, given all the driving we did in August 2019 (see chart above), I expect that we'll be further ahead once a full year is paid out.

Conclusions
So yes, more is being rebated than paid by us as the Yukon Government predicted.  Thank you carbon polluters?  But why is our family's emissions so much lower than the "average?"  Well for a few reasons:

1. Firstly, the "average" emissions I show above include all government, industrial and commercial emissions as well.  Thus it really isn't representative of an individual family's direct greenhouse gas emissions.
2. We made the choice as a family to try to have a "light" carbon footprint, which includes:

• Making the conscious choice (and accept the cost) to live and work downtown.  Thus we have very short commutes.
• I try to cycle as much as possible year-round.  I'd rather spend my money on nice beer instead of buying gasoline.
• We don't travel a lot - there is lots of fun to be had close to home and lots wild landscapes to explore and experience in southern Yukon. I'm not done exploring home after almost 40 years of living here!
• We have a relatively modest, energy efficient home that we heat primary with wood and have electric backup.  No more nasty heating oil for us.

Pork Chops and Refuge Islands

I got quite a few question asking "what is a Pork Chop?" after I'd mentioned that feature in my last blog post regarding the new cycle path along the Alaska Highway.

Pork Chop
A "pork chop" it a term to describe a triangular shaped "island" or piece of alienated land created by a right-hand "slip lane" or right-hand merge/diverge lane.  They are kind of an antiquate roadway design for convenience of drivers, but are quite problematic for pedestrians and cyclists.

Unfortunately, Whitehorse is rife with them.  Here are some examples:
 

Here are the pork chops at the infamous 4th and 2nd Ave intersection.  The kids that presented to City Council spoke extensively about how dangerous this intersection for them biking home from school. Good news is we heard that the City has started planning for re-design of this intersection!

Here is the 2nd and Quartz Rd. intersection.  Look at the convoluted path (sorry about my crude drawing) that a pedestrian has to follow to cross Quartz Rd.  What a pain in the a; not good for making your walk convenient.  Also, those right-hand turning cars are moving fast across those uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.

Here is Alaska Highway and 2-Mile Hill.  Imagine if you are an on-road cyclists trying to go northbound.  You have to first cross the high-speed right-turning traffic, then move through the intersection, then again change lanes across the northbound traffic coming from 2-mile Hill.  Scary for even the most bold of cyclists, never mind pulling children in a Chariot!  Anyone who has ridden through the recently re-built Lewes Blvd and Hospital Road intersection can attest to these hazards.

Here is are examples of pork-chops from the highway through Kelowna.  At YG's recent public seminar on road safety,  highway-safety expert Paul LaFleur cited the highway through Kelowna as a bad example and not what you want to do for a highway through a City.

Some years ago we did an an-hoc survey of all the "problematic" intersections for cyclists in Whitehorse.  Interestingly, all of the "problem" intersections correlated 1:1 to intersections with pork-chops.  

Also, cities are actively removing "pork chops" because of the barriers they create for non-motorists; here is an example from London Ontario: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/pork-chop-islands-getting-axed-1.4366890


 Refuge Islands

So how do we make intersection safer for pedestrian and cyclists?  The contemporary solution is a "refuge island."  This is a protected space (created by a median) between the two different directions of travel, see an example below:

Refuge island between the two directions of road travel (from left-to-right).  This is a Dutch example, they have so much bike traffic they provide separate spaces for pedestrians and cyclists!

The refuge island makes the crossing distance shorter for vulnerable road users.  I've seen at least two examples of why this is important:

1. Children cognitively have a difficult time both keeping track of traffic from two directions AND the relative speed of the vehicles.  Thus crossing two different directions at the same time is dangerous for them as they can't judge the space/distances well.  A refuge island allows them to cross one-direction at at time.
2. I have a personal example when travelling in Mexico with my aging father last year.  The community we were in divided the roadways and in doing so created refuge islands at the crosswalks.  My father is getting increasingly stiff and so walks slowly.  The refuge island allowed him to cross the roadways, one direction/lane at a time.

In signalized intersections refuge islands are also needed because we allow cars to turn right on red lights and thus cars traverse the cross-walk even when the walk signal is illuminated.

Here is a schematic of a refuge island from busy roads in city of Amsterdam.  Notice the refuge space created between in the two directions of travel.  Again, because of their bike volumes the pedestrians and cyclists have separate spaces.  This is also a good example of a Protected Intersection.

A ride on the new Alaska Highway bike path

This weekend I took a ride on the recently completed new multi-use path (MUP) paralleling the Alaska Highway from the north end of the airport to Range Road.  It was built as part of Yukon Government's widening/twinning of the Alaska Highway through this area.

It is a nicely paved section of trail that partially extends the MUP 800 m further northward from the airport trail. It ends abruptly partially along Range Road and is not connected to anything at this time.  YG stated that City of Whitehorse will complete the trail northward to 2-Mile Hill at some point in the future (City has yet to confirm when this might occur).

Since we will hopefully starting to build a lot more protected spaces for cyclists in the coming years, I'm going to focus on "lessons learned" from YG's first attempt at this type of infrastructure:

Start of the new path.  Nice smooth asphalt, good gentle grade. LESSONS LEARNED: no drainage on the up-slope side, especially runoff from the highway will result in ice accumulating on the path, leading down to the intersection in the foreground. PS - this gate is terrible!

T-junction at Range Road.  Main path loops off to the right unnecessarily.  Note already the pedestrian in distance has left the path to walk directly via the road!  I suspect this is what many will do. LESSON LEARNED: Keep bike paths straight, convenient and designed for 30km/hr.  They need to be designed like a road with no unnecessary turns, bends or hills.

Path looping around Range Road.  This route causes the path to cross three driveways/entrances that could have been avoided if the path crossed Range Road at the signalized intersection with Alaska Highway.  LESSON LEARNED:  Plan cycle routes to minimize interruptions and crossing with motor vehicle traffic.

Pedestrian crossing of Range Road at Alaska Highway (signal lights remains to be installed).  This is where the MUP should have crossed Range Road as a Protected Intersection.  Nice cut-through of the "pork chop", but the pork-chop is very problematic for road-cyclists.  The create a difficult and dangerous situation for cyclists and should not be used.  LESSON LEARNED: Do no use pork chops as they create unnecessary difficulty and hazard for cyclists and inconveniences for pedestrians.  A refuge island between the lanes would be the better, safer solution.

Alaska Highway Crossing to unpaved trail on west side of highway, leading to Valleyview.  Note the trail sloping down to crossing.  LESSONS LEARNED:  We need to 1) avoid unnecessary climbs on bike paths; and 2) if there is a decent, drop the trail well in advance of the roadway crossing so cyclists are not carrying excess speed coming into the intersection. 

Looking towards the mid-block crossing where the trail crosses Range Road.  Note the additional driveway crossing here at Toyota.

 

Looking back south towards the airport.  Note, contrary to YG staffs' claim,  there is ample space between Range Road (on the left) and the Alaska Highway (on the right) to accommodate the trail directly to the intersection in the distance.  LESSON LEARNED:  Cycle paths should be as straight and direct as possible and do not require much space. 

Again the path looking southward.  Some sections are well elevated with ditching on both sides, however other locations like this one do not have a ditch between the road and the path.  At this location, melting snow runoff will flow from the road onto the path, creating ice on the path.  LESSON LEARNED: provide good drainage and ditching for bike paths, same as done for roadways.

And here is the abrupt north end of the path.  A path to nowhere.  LESSON LEARNED: To build a cycle network, it needs to connect.  With $6 million spent on this project, it is shame that path couldn't have gone another 500m north to connect with the multi-use path at 2-Mile Hill.

Summary:
 Well, it is great to see another piece of the Alaska CycleHighway being built.   Certainly the lack of a paved path between airport trail and Range Road was a missing piece.  However, for spending $6 million of public funds to build additional highway lanes that are not needed, the cycling component is disappointing. 

Overall verdict:  Should have done better.

How can Yukon Government Support Cycling in Whitehorse

I was recently asked what role Yukon Government (YG) has in developing cycling as a mainstream mode of transportation within the City of Whitehorse?

Most of the roads and trails within Whitehorse are the City’s responsibility, but Yukon Government plays a role in enhancing cycling in at least 6 areas:

1. There will be a forthcoming Climate Change, Energy and Green Economy Strategy that is to replace the existing separate Climate, Energy and Biomass Strategies.  This new Strategy should set overall direction for government to increase support for sustainable transportation.  One aspect for this could be subsidies for electric vehicles.  I hope this includes full subsidy for e-bikes as the GHG reductions for an e-bike is FAR higher than an electric car.
2. Updating the Motor Vehicles Act to become a more inclusive Road Safety Act (as per the resolution passed by the Association of Yukon Communities in 2019).  This should include several measures and changes that make cycling safer and reduce barriers to convenient cycling. Whitehorse Urban Cycling Coalition provided input into the Motor Vehicle Re-write and we look forward to all of that input being reflected in the new act.
3. YG provides funding for projects, either directly from its resources, or through bilateral funding.  The bilateral funding is Federal money that flows to the Yukon Government which then in turn is used to fund municipal infrastructure projects.  This includes both Gas Tax and more significantly, funding from the Investing in Canada Infrastructure Program.  This latter is moving so much money to the Yukon that the municipalities cannot spend it all.  In the words of the municipal mangers “[capital] money is not the limitation; it is our capacity to manage the projects that is the barrier.”  Thus, YG plays a key gatekeeper role to funding municipal infrastructure projects.
4. The Alaska Highway is a key transportation corridor that slices through Whitehorse and it is owned and managed by Yukon Government.  It is used daily by citizens to move about Whitehorse and as such is a major opportunity, or as seen recently, barrier to cycling.  The Alaska Highway acts as a major barrier or wall segregating Whitehorse in two halves.  But, since YG controls this land, they can build infrastructure that promote safe, convenient cycling connections both across the highway and along it.
5. Schools are a major destination for cyclists in Whitehorse (many, being underage, do not have the privilege of operating a motor vehicle).  Department of Education has the resources and responsibility to provide safe routes to school. They can enhance connectivity on-school property to the cycle network.  Furthermore, they could invest in active transportation routes & connections to the schools.  Kids who arrive at school by active transportation (cycling or walking) are known to have better education outcomes.
6. Lastly, YG is the largest employer in downtown Whitehorse.  They own and operate many workplaces, and like schools, can facilitate active transportation to those workplaces.  This would include both onsite infrastructures to support cycling such as high quality, covered, secure bike parking, workplace showers/change rooms as well as physical, convenient connectivity to the adjacent bike network.  These measures would help make cycling to work easier and more convenient, thus reducing barriers to cycle commuting. 

The more Yukon Government supports cycling through the measures above, it improves cycling for EVERYONE through the force multiplier effect.  Yukon Government just declared a “Climate Emergency” this week and here is a tangible way to put that declaration in action, save money and help build a healthier, happier community.

Pedestrian & Bike Underpass of Alaska Highway?

Crossing of the Alaska Highway by bike or foot is a challenge.  There are no designated crossing points of the highway between the lights at 2-Mile Hill to the north and the lights 6 km to the south at Robert Service Way.  Yet we have a major multi-use path between downtown and the neighborhoods west of the Highway at the north end of the airport there are no safe crossing points.  Not only for cyclists, but there is considerable pedestrian travel from McIntyre and Hillcrest, walking downtown around the north end of the Airport.

Excerpt from Whitehorse current Cycle Commuting Map.

So in the age of extravagant spending on highways, why not providing a safe, separated crossing of the Alaska Highway?  This would not only benefit cyclists, but also all the walkers; by separating the crossing it would not inconvenience drivers either.  Although this may seem a bit of a radical idea for 1950's-era Whitehorse, in progressive sustainable transportation countries it is the common way of keeping vulnerable road uses safe when crossing major roads: they recognize that the two modes are not compatible and need separated spaces.

Cycleway underpass in Oulu, Finland.  Note large comfortable size that accommodates snow clearing equipment (https://youtu.be/iOfuNAgCMJ4)

I would propose the underpass be located at the north end of the airport.  This location would service both Hillcrest and folks coming down from McIntyre.  Also if the trail on the west side were extended to Valleyview folks could use the underpass to access downtown via the airport/Black Street gully stairs.   It is already grade-separated on the east-side so only only the west side would need to have a ramp down from the trail.  Here is what it could look like:

Proposed location for Alaska Highway underpass at north end of Airport.

I did some calculations:  A 3.6 m high underpass can be accommodated under the highway here.  (3.6 m is a recommended height I found in a reference that can accommodate snow clearing equipment).  It should be a big, open, lighted box underpass that is lit and inviting, not a dank culvert such as used on Hamilton Blvd (look to the dutch examples to see how to do these right).   The path would slope up from the airport trail at 3% grade through the underpass.  Then on the west side the trail would need to gain another 2.5 to 3 m to reach the elevation of the ditch on the west side.  This would be a ramp down of about 55 m long at 5% (which is the recommended maximum grade for All Ages and Abilities (AAA) cycleways).  It would be tight on the west side so some retaining walls would likely be required at the underpass entrance, but these are used in many places around Whitehorse (Pelly Construction's yard on Industrial Road, Robert Service Way/Millennium Trail, etc.) So it is all do-able.

If we are willing to spend millions on the Alaska Highway, why shouldn't we expect some safe, separated infrastructure for vulnerable road users too?